Despite not indicating a flood event in his forecast - and despite the
superb, bang-on forecast from the Met Office - this little snippet
gives you a view to just how delusional he is - note that the reason
why the North Sea storm surge didn't occur is the reason why the
Cumbria event happened ! The last sentence is a piece of wonderful
waffle.

Richard

• “The severity and timing of extreme events over Britain, Ireland, NW
Europe and the world was excellent.
• “Standard Meteorology consistently underestimated the severity of
events even 12 hours ahead as we warned they would. This has caused
unnecessary suffering and loss.
• “A lot of our detailed forecast statements were confirmed but the
50/50 possibility of storm-surge tidal floods in the N Sea did not
happen. The reason is also why Cumbria was devastated by floods; and
appears connected to why some other events around the world stopped or
developed differently from expected.

"Richard Dixon" wrote in message
...
Despite not indicating a flood event in his forecast - and despite the
superb, bang-on forecast from the Met Office - this little snippet
gives you a view to just how delusional he is - note that the reason
why the North Sea storm surge didn't occur is the reason why the
Cumbria event happened ! The last sentence is a piece of wonderful
waffle.

Richard

• “The severity and timing of extreme events over Britain, Ireland, NW
Europe and the world was excellent.
• “Standard Meteorology consistently underestimated the severity of
events even 12 hours ahead as we warned they would. This has caused
unnecessary suffering and loss.

What rubbish.
The Met Office forecast, complete with red warnings was excellent.
It talked of rainfall totals 'in excess of 250mm' in upland areas.
As we all know, that happened.
From looking at the time the 'code red' thread was started on this
ng (13.52 18/11) we can infer that the warning was issued around
midday on that day.
Yet here are the Seathwaite totals (also from this group)

16th/17th 09-09 38.6
17th/18th 09-09 60.8
18th/19th 09-09 142.6
19th/20th 09-09 246.6

So as we can see, considerably more warning than 12hrs for
the exceptional rainfall, more like 48hrs.

• “A lot of our detailed forecast statements were confirmed but the
50/50 possibility of storm-surge tidal floods in the N Sea did not
happen. The reason is also why Cumbria was devastated by floods; and
appears connected to why some other events around the world stopped or
developed differently from expected.

LOL!
How can a 50/50 probability forecast of something happen or
not happen?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:02:16 -0800 (PST), Richard Dixon wrote:

Despite not indicating a flood event in his forecast - and despite the
superb, bang-on forecast from the Met Office - this little snippet
gives you a view to just how delusional he is - note that the reason
why the North Sea storm surge didn't occur is the reason why the
Cumbria event happened ! The last sentence is a piece of wonderful
waffle.

Richard

• “The severity and timing of extreme events over Britain, Ireland, NW
Europe and the world was excellent.
• “Standard Meteorology consistently underestimated the severity of
events even 12 hours ahead as we warned they would. This has caused
unnecessary suffering and loss.
• “A lot of our detailed forecast statements were confirmed but the
50/50 possibility of storm-surge tidal floods in the N Sea did not
happen. The reason is also why Cumbria was devastated by floods; and
appears connected to why some other events around the world stopped or
developed differently from expected.

Has anyone seen Piers and Weatherlawyer at the same time?



--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

In article
,
Richard Dixon writes:
Despite not indicating a flood event in his forecast - and despite the
superb, bang-on forecast from the Met Office - this little snippet
gives you a view to just how delusional he is - note that the reason
why the North Sea storm surge didn't occur is the reason why the
Cumbria event happened ! The last sentence is a piece of wonderful
waffle.
snip

I think calling him delusional is actually taking a charitable view. I'm
more cynical.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

. "A lot of our detailed forecast statements were confirmed but the
50/50 possibility of storm-surge tidal floods in the N Sea did not
happen.

.... I thought his forecast was for 85% probability?

Martin.


--
Martin Rowley
West Moors, East Dorset (UK): 17m (56ft) amsl
Lat: 50.82N Long: 01.88W
NGR: SU 082 023

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
. "A lot of our detailed forecast statements were confirmed but the
50/50 possibility of storm-surge tidal floods in the N Sea did not
happen.

... I thought his forecast was for 85% probability?


An 85% probability of a 50/50 chance.....
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

Martin Rowley wrote:
.... I thought his forecast was for 85% probability?

I think that was the probability of him getting it completely wrong and
then afterwards claiming the exact opposite.
--
Steve Loft
Sanday, Orkney. 5m ASL. http://sanday.org.uk/weather
Free weather station softwa http://sandaysoft.com/
uk.sci.weather FAQs/glossary/etc: http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/

On Nov 22, 2:14*pm, John Hall wrote:
In article
,
*Richard Dixon writes:Despite not indicating a flood event in his forecast - and despite the
superb, bang-on forecast from the Met Office - this little snippet
gives you a view to just how delusional he is - note that the reason
why the North Sea storm surge didn't occur is the reason why the
Cumbria event happened ! The last sentence is a piece of wonderful
waffle.

snip

I think calling him delusional is actually taking a charitable view. I'm
more cynical.

Your cynicism is almost certainly justified, although
delusional is accurate too, especially after this latest débacle.
I have met him, twice, when he gave talks to Croydon
Astronomical Society. God knows why we asked him - I was off the
committee by then. He has an enormous ego and has an entourage of
groupies to assist him. He waved a cheque about which represented his
winnings in some meteorological bet, which I thought was a bit
vulgar. He wouldn't explain his methods when I and others from the
audience questioned him after the talk and there was some
embarrassment.
With the widespread ignorance of meteorology among the
population and press in particular he knows he can con people into
taking him seriously and make a lot of money in the process. This
feeds both his bank balance and his ego. And all this despite his
repeated failings.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:28:17 -0800 (PST), Tudor Hughes
wrote:

On Nov 22, 2:14*pm, John Hall wrote:
In article
,
With the widespread ignorance of meteorology among the
population and press in particular he knows he can con people into
taking him seriously and make a lot of money in the process. This
feeds both his bank balance and his ego. And all this despite his
repeated failings.

What a pity the trades descriptions act doesn't apply to weather
forecasting, that would I suspect soon put him on the back foot.

I rarely participate in any threads about this man and his forecasting
machine because I don't like to give him or his unpublished methods
the oxygen of publicity... but this week, he's made me angry. It's
partly the North Sea storm surge debacle and his subsequent feeble
attempt to explain the total failure of his forecast but that's not
the worst of it.

His comments about "standard meteorology" forecasting of the Cumbria
rainfall event can best be described quite simply as lies. The Met
Office should challenge his statement vigorously and very publicly,
while the impressive accuracy of their forecasts of the event is still
fresh in everyone's minds. They will rarely have a better chance to
put him in his place. Code Red please, Met Office, Code Red.

--
Dave

On 22 Nov, 15:28, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Nov 22, 2:14*pm, John Hall wrote:

In article
,
*Richard Dixon writes:Despite not indicating a flood event in his forecast - and despite the
superb, bang-on forecast from the Met Office - this little snippet
gives you a view to just how delusional he is - note that the reason
why the North Sea storm surge didn't occur is the reason why the
Cumbria event happened ! The last sentence is a piece of wonderful
waffle.

snip

I think calling him delusional is actually taking a charitable view. I'm
more cynical.

* * * * * Your cynicism is almost certainly justified, although
delusional is accurate too, especially after this latest débacle.
* * * * * *I have met him, twice, when he gave talks to Croydon
Astronomical Society. *God knows why we asked him - I was off the
committee by then. *He has an enormous ego and has an entourage of
groupies to assist him. *He waved a cheque about which represented his
winnings in some meteorological bet, which I thought was a bit
vulgar. *He wouldn't explain his methods when I and others from the
audience questioned him after the talk and there was some
embarrassment.
* * * * * With the widespread ignorance of meteorology among the
population and press in particular he knows he can con people into
taking him seriously and make a lot of money in the process. *This
feeds both his bank balance and his ego. *And all this despite his
repeated failings.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

The man sounds utterly vulgar...